So now that DC riots are over ...

[Keith&Co.]

CEO John Matze said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday.

"WE ARE BEING SILENCED!!!" he whined to about 3.8 million direct viewers...

 

[Derec]

Had Trump been any other person, he'd been banned already.

Not if he was say a black supremacist like Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan.

It is quite telling that Twitter is fine with those people and organizations.

The incitement of the riot and then his post riot crap possibly inciting future violence gave social media no options.

How many #BLM/Antifa accounts calling for rioting and looting or other violence have been banned? You have to admit that Twitter is quite inconsistent with their policies.

 

[ZiprHead]

My question — Is the following post (#19) sincere? Or is it a sarcastic caricature? — is quite sincere. I will appreciate it if someone answers. RVonse?

Isn't the more interesting question whether those in power will use 1/6 as an excuse to curtail domestic civil liberties?

There is that. But there is much much more.

The Establishment has now put out calls for retribution against US Senators and Representatives who supported Trump’s attempt to have the evidence of electoral fraud examined. Nonpartisan professionals have found and reported evidence of electoral fraud is overwhelming. Yet it has been deep-sixed without ever being examined. In place of examination, from day one the presstitutes, none of whom looked at the evidence, repeated endlessly that there was no evidence. Trump, and not the stolen election, was blamed for discrediting American democracy.

The American Establishment is not through with Trump and his supporters. Propaganda campaigns against them could well end in show trials.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, like the print and TV media and NPR, are employed to shut down non-establishment explanations. Consequently, new social media organizations, such as Parler have arisen as uncensored forums. Judging from information sent to Mark Crispin Miller and posted on Notes from Underground ( https://markcrispinmiller.com ), Parler is now under attack: “BREAKING – Apple has given #Parler a 24 HOUR ULTIMATUM to implement a “moderation plan” or it’s getting scrubbed from the app store.” If this hasn’t yet happened, it will. “Moderation,” of course, means compliance with Establishment wishes. [Update: Parlor scrubbed–https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...down-on-parler-for-lack-of-content-mediation]

The world does not understand that the American Establishment has a propaganda organization that shames the one assembled by Joseph Goebbels. The American media, never very independent, lost all semblance to independence during the Clinton regime when 90% of the US media was concentrated into six hands and converted into a completely obedient tool of the Establishment. Anyone who doubts this should explain why on every issue the presstitutes speak with one voice, which is never the voice of the people.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/20...tablishment-is-already-fomenting-civil-war-2/

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was brought about by the congress that was controlled in both houses by Republicans. Yes, Clinton signed the act to the dismay of the left. It was stated to allow more competition in the industry but it allowed the opposite to happen. PCR is right about that part. Blaming it all on Clinton is the wrong part. PCR's compatriots were just as much if not more responsible.

 

[laughing dog]

Had Trump been any other person, he'd been banned already.

Not if he was say a black supremacist like Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan.

It is quite telling that Twitter is fine with those people and organizations.

The incitement of the riot and then his post riot crap possibly inciting future violence gave social media no options.

How many #BLM/Antifa accounts calling for rioting and looting or other violence have been banned? You have to admit that Twitter is quite inconsistent with their policies.

Another "whataboutism" that ignores the central difference that no one else is the POTUS. Really, what is this need to defend that human shitpost of a President?

 

[Derec]

If i start fights in five bars and get permanently kicked out of five bars, that's five mistakes _I_ made, not the sudden imposition of Prohibition.

Let's say you get kicked out of five bars because you are black and the five owners are racist. Just because a government did not order them to kick you out does not make their behavior right.
When social media or web hosting companies have as much power as they do in our Web 2.0 society, maybe they should be viewed as "public accommodations" akin to bars and restaurants. Which means Twitter et al should not be able to willy nilly ban people or censor content. Sure, rules of behavior should exist in social media, but they should be applied consistently and without partisan bias. If Trump is banned, Louis "white people and Jews are evil" Farrakhan should have been banned a long time ago!

 

[Derec]

Another "whataboutism" that ignores the central difference that no one else is the POTUS.

Not for long. Does that mean that you think Twitter should reinstate him on the 20th at noon? Or what's your point.

Really, what is this need to defend that human shitpost of a President?

I don't defend Trump. I dislike and oppose Trump. But if Trump should be banned so should many more. And yet you have no problem with Louis Farrakhan et al.

 

[Derec]

Advocacy of violence is against the TOU. Do it and you will get your ass tossed. Every freedom has limitations.

..

 

[Derec]

I am not rejoicing over anything.

Could have fooled me this Summer!

I do not advocate "deplatforming" dissenting views.

Except those not on the left.

 

[ZiprHead]

Advocacy of violence is against the TOU. Do it and you will get your ass tossed. Every freedom has limitations.

..

 

[laughing dog]

Another "whataboutism" that ignores the central difference that no one else is the POTUS.

Not for long. Does that mean that you think Twitter should reinstate him on the 20th at noon? Or what's your point.

It takes an enormous amount of obtuseness to ignore the power that this President has and the devotion of his followers.

I don't defend Trump. I dislike and oppose Trump.

LOL.

But if Trump should be banned so should many more.

Because there is clear observable evidence that these others are motivating mobs to commit violence? Who would that be?

And yet you have no problem with Louis Farrakhan et al.

Is there clear observable evidence that Mr. Farrarkhan actually motivates mobs to commit violence?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really, what is this need to defend that human shitpost of a President?

It's not the POSus, it's never been about the thread topic. That's just an excuse for the whataboutism.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not rejoicing over anything.

Could have fooled me this Summer!

[insult removed]

Except those not on the left.

Prove it with a quote from me. Otherwise, it is just another dumbass "whataboutism" from you.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Had Trump been any other person, he'd been banned already.

Not if he was say a black supremacist like Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan.

It is quite telling that Twitter is fine with those people and organizations.

The incitement of the riot and then his post riot crap possibly inciting future violence gave social media no options.

How many #BLM/Antifa accounts calling for rioting and looting or other violence have been banned? You have to admit that Twitter is quite inconsistent with their policies.

There is utterly no parallel in our history for a President doing what Trump has done to this country since Nov. 7. None. It is the equivalent of treason -- he was out, is still out, to bring down the American system of self-government. Boo Hoo to claims of censorship on Donald. In a situation without precedent, with Trump's legions of weapon-toting morons vowing to return in numbers that will swamp an army, we need some solutions that step out of precedent. When Trumpanzees are advancing on government buildings next week -- if, if , if... -- let the cops and national guard stand their ground.

 

[Politesse]

So much for over the fence talk being free speech. It's like others say: His Flagency has all the microphone he needs. He doesn't want to speak freely. He wants to incite. The for profit chaps decided his chatter wasn't good for business. -30-

So you feel that a small cadre in Silicon Valley gets to decide what you can and cannot see? That may be fine for you, but for me.

Your source for which was... that a Silicon Valley executive told you what to think, and you obeyed.

A very interesting rhetorical strategy, there. Trying to teach by demonstration?

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what Elon Musk thinks, the sooner he finishes his supposed move to Texas, the sooner we'll be rid of his nonsense. He certainly isn't the determinant of whether I do or do not consider a political coup to be a valid form of democratic protest.

 

[laughing dog]

Pretty interesting that those who had no issue with force used to limit damage to private or public property damage in riots by #BLM and Antifa have a problem when Twitter et all act to limit the damage to their private property from Mr. Trump's incitements to violence.

 

[Derec]

It takes an enormous amount of obtuseness to ignore the power that this President has and the devotion of his followers.

It takes an enormous amount of otuseness to ignore the left wing rioting and violence gripping the US since 2014.

LOL.

Laugh if you want, but it's true. I didn't even vote for him, neither time.
And I don't defend him on here. I may defend a policy of his (few and far between) but not him.

Because there is clear observable evidence that these others are motivating mobs to commit violence? Who would that be?

Let's do a classic. Michael Brown's mother's boyfriend inciting riots.

Result:




First picture taken from this TIME article defending left-wing violence.
Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting

Is there clear observable evidence that Mr. Farrarkhan actually motivates mobs to commit violence?

Micah Johnson was a NoI sympathizer, to name one example. Ok, not a mob but very deadly.

 

[Derec]

[consistency edit]

 

[laughing dog]

[removed insults]

 

[laughing dog]

It takes an enormous amount of otuseness to ignore the left wing rioting and violence gripping the US since 2014.

Whataboutisms are not an argument.

Laugh if you want, but it's true. I didn't even vote for him, neither time.
And I don't defend him on here. I may defend a policy of his (few and far between) but not him.

LOL

Let's do a classic. Michael Brown's mother's boyfriend inciting riots. ....

Assuming the timing is accurate, has he been banned from Twitter?

Micah Johnson was a NoI sympathizer, to name one example. Ok, not a mob but very deadly.

That is not evidence that Mr. Farrakham incited violence at all.

 

[Wiploc]

All participants are guilty of felony murder.

All Republicans will have to answer "yes" when asked whether they have been members of an organization promoting violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

The Civil War was started by Democrats.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that that's true. And let's grant, again, for the sake of argument, that the civil war was an attempt to violently overthrow the U.S. government.

The question isn't whether you are a member of an organization that has ever promoted the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.

In order to make sense, the question has to be about whether you were a member while the organization promoted the violent overthrow.

There's nothing wrong with being a member of an organization that promotes our violent overthrow after you quit being a member or before you join.